Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 09/15/1997September 15, 1997 1 1VIINUT'ES a OI+' A REG~JLAR NdEE~'ING 3 PETALiJMA CIT~' COUNCII. a 1VIONDA~', SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 23 5 ROI.I, CAI,I, 3:00 u.m. 6 Present: Read, Keller, Stompe*, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss ~ Absent: None *Arrived at 3:25 p.m. 8 P~J~Y.IC COlVIINIEN'~" v Harvey Goldberg - talked again about erosion on the river bank at his property which is io located outside of the City Limits south of town. The meeting he was going to have with a ii representative of the Army Corps did not occur. It has been rescheduled for this Thursday iz afternoon. Along with his neighboring property owners, he said, they have ownership of 2 ~s miles along the river, all with the same erosion problems. He said a"no wake" zone would ia very helpful to them. Other suggestions were to incorporate a speed limit for boats and is placement of some material to stop waves from eroding the bank. He would be willing to i6 work on any beautification project the City could come up with. i~ COUNCII. COMMENT is There was discussion about rearranging the evening meeting agenda schedule. It was agreed i9 to wait until the evening to determine the best use of time. 2o NR reported on the Mayors and Councilmembers meeting of September 11. The Economic zi Viability Project will be unveiled October 15. Its features are transportation, agriculture, 2z tourism, and technology. On a future age~, she would like to talk about a joint meeting z3 with the City of Novato. ~a PT asked that in the future, if a Councilmember asks for something to be on an agenda, that a zs report of some kind be forwarded to the other members of the Council explaining why the 26 item is being brought back. She would like the Council to have placed on the next afternoon a~ agenda the Council Procedure amendment that was discussed briefly. 2s 29 The minutes of the September 2, 1997, meeting were approved as amended 1VIINIJTES so Page 5, Line 17 - Country Club Estates - Councilman Keller's request was not just that staff si requirements are completed as set forth but I wanted to make sure that it was understood in 32 the minutes that something to the effect that given the long, controversial history of the 33 project, it is important that the neighborhood be noticed in advance and participate in signing 34 off the conditions prior to grading. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, DK- Councilmember David Keller, MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Cidzens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Page 24, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 ~ Line 37 - Traf~ic Signal Optimization and Interconnection Study - Councilman Keller also 2 requested of Allan Tilton that we get a report back to the Council, possibly in a map form, 3 showing the improvements to the transportation segments given the traffic signal a authorization. s CONSENT CAI.EIVDAR 6 The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the City ~ Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by NR and seconded by s MM. 9 Ayes: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss io Noes: None i i Absent: Stompe ~2 ~so. 97-249 NCS ~3 CLAIMS ANI~ ~II.LS ia Resolution 97-249 NCS approving Claims and Bills #67140 to #67557. is ORI). 2059 NCS i6 REZONE 117, 119 and 121 ITPHAM TO ~iISTORIC i~ Adopt Ordinance 2059 NCS designating 117, 119A, 119C, 119D and 121 Upham Street as is Residential Compact/Historic. Introduced by JH and MM on September 2. i9 * * * * * End of Consent Calendar * * * * * zo R~SO. 97-250 NCS 2i COUNTRY CLUB ESTAT~S 2A/3A 22 Resolution 97-250NCS approving the final map for Country Club Estates 2A/3A located on z3 Country Club Drive. ~here was a considerable discussion about the project. 2a The President of the Country Club Unit 1 Homeowners Association (HOA), Mark Eglin, 2s presented a letter requesting that the newer units be combined with the already existing HOA, 26 that the last lot be placed in open space with this phase of the project and the homeowners of z~ Unit 1 be beneficiary of that. ~Also, the I,andscape Assessment District on Phase 2 needs to 2s be put in place along with the homeowners association. We don't want anything left over for z9 Phase 5. When all the development is done, we want something that we can manage. 3o I~avid Coldoff, of Windy Hill Associates which is the new deve~oper of the project, addressed s~ some of the issues. The cunent phases are being required to maintain more improvements 3z than the earlier unit and combining the homeowners associations would cause confusion and 33 a dissimilar homeowner dues structure. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember MattMaguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 25 i Also, there are differences between the prior developer's product and the new developer's 2 product. The administration of these phases is going to be time consuming and very 3 complicated. The time limit to annex Phase 2 is September 27. We are doing everytlung we a can to clean up the history of this. The CC&R's are very different because of the roads and s other private improvements. 6 Principal Planner Jim McCann noted that the issues addressed by the Homeowners 7 Association of Unit 1 are either addressed by ~Jnit 3 conditions of approval or iJnit 4 a conditions of approval. The open space issues are not part of the current phase. 9 Councilmember Stompe arrived at 3:25 p.m. The formation of a homeowners association is a io private matter and the City has little involvement in it. ii Regarding annexation of homeowners associations, in the CC&R's this is permitted but not iz required. The L,andscape Assessment District formation for Phase 2, wluch already has is resident owners, has not been done. The lot which was requested to be placed in open space ia is a buildable lot and will not be encumbered by an open space easement. It is part of a is subsequent phase of development. Planning Director Tuft said "We would like to get the i6 homeowners association in Phase 2 to come into Phase 1. Resolution 97-250 NCS i~ approving the final map for Country Club Estates 2A/3A Phase 3 was introduced by MS and ia seconded by MM. iv Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 2o Noes: None 2i Absent: None 22 1ZES0. 97-251 NCS 23 ABAG P~OLEI) POWEl2 P~tOGRA1VI za The City Attorney was not present and the Council was told by staff that he has not reviewed as tlus material. 'The City Council wanted assurance that the City Attorney would be reviewing a6 the documents. IZesolution 97-251 NCS authorizing enrollment of the City of Petaluma in 2~ the Association of Bay Area Government's pooled power purchasing program to acquire zs electric supply and related services under a Direct Access Electric Aggregation Agreement z9 which will be assigned from "ABAG" to "ABAG Power" after the formation of ABAG so Power. This commitment is for a minimum of one year. A representative of ABAG was s i present to answer questions. She said there would be no encumbrances or differences if the s2 City should want to discontinue participation in this program. Most of the power will be 33 generated by hydroelectric plants as well as coal and oil fired plants. However, there may be 34 some nuclear power generation of electricity that could be mixed with the other sources of ss electricity. Regarding impacts to the City's Franchise Fee, the ABAG representative said the 36 revenue should remain neutral and added the City will experience a 10% reduction in s~ franchise fee. Regarding the possibility of serving the entire city with power, ttus opporturuty sa has not yet been refined. The City Council would like to have it explored, at least as a 39 concept. There is a competitive transition charge. The period for enrollment into this ao program expires September 30, 1997, for the 1998 calendar year. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, DK Councilmember David Keller, MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Govemments NR-Councilmember Nancy Read 11~IS Councilmember Mary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Page 26, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 i The City Council had before them a resolution approving enrolling into the pooled power z purchasing program, a copy of (1) a Joint Powers Agreement creating the ABAG POWER s (Publicly Owned Energy Resources) composed of 50 cities and towns, 10 counties, and 13 a ' special districts, copy of (2) By-laws of ABAG POWER, and copy of (3) a Direct Access s Electric Aggregation Agreement by and between the ABAG and Public Agencies within the 6 service territory of Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The Direct Access Electric Aggregation ~ Agreement stipulates the commercial terms of the program. The term of the Direct Access s Electric Aggregation Agreement is one year. 9 The power suppliers include Seattle City Light, CNG Energy Services and PG&E Energy io Services. Billing services will be provided by Arizona Public Service Company. ABAG will i i purchase power for each participant in the program and arrange for its delivery or i2 transmission to the PG&E system. PG&E will be responsible for ensuring delivery of the is power to the end users as well as for routine maintenance and emergency response services. ia Participants will be billed for power charges, transmission charges, and PG&E distribution is charges, which will include a competitive transition charge and a public benefits charge. ~6 Rates will be established this Fall and will be structured to reflect the relative cost of peak i~ and off-peak power. It anticipated there will be a specific rate for street lighting. is Participants will be required by state regulation to install meters capable of hourly reads on all i9 accounts with greater than 20 kilowatt ma~cimum demand. 2o Resolution 97-251 NCS was introduced by MM, seconded by DK, with the provisions that 2i the City Attorney reviews all of the documents, ABAG explores as a concept the ability to 22 serve the residents, the City Manager shall be the City Council's designee to the authority, 23 there is a report back to the Council on the term limitations of the Board members, and a Za notation is made the City's preference is not to use nuclear power. 2s Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 26 Noes: None 2~ Absent: None zs 1~S0. 97-252 NCS ~9 ABAG POOLEI9 NATIJI~AI, GAS PROGgtAIVI ~ 3o Resolution 97-252 NCS authorizing the City Manager to enroll the City of Petaluma in the 3i Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) pooled natural gas purchasing program. 32 ABAG entered into natural gas sales a year ago. They were able to reduce the cost of the 33 product by 7%. The Council had before them the proposed Natural Gas Sales and 34 Aggregation Agreement appointing ABAG as the Core Transport Agent for the City for 3s natural gas and PG&E's Customer Authorization for Core Gas Transportation Service. 36 Participants will receive a single monthly bill for natural gas service from ABAG, with all s~ accounts consolidated into one summary bill. PG&E will provide the City of Petaluma .with 3s an "information only" invoice showing the City's actual meter readings. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Courrcilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Ke/ler, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - CiUzens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments ~~ u, September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 27 i The City Manager is authorized to execute the contracts and the City Manager or his 2 designee is appointed to the ABAG Power Purchasing Pool Committee to oversee the s operation of this program. Introduced by NIM and seconded by DK. a Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 5 Noes: None 6 Absent: None ~ CEN~'ItAI. PETAI,UIVIA SPECIF'IC PLAN ~ a The railroad line that was built many years ago, travels along Lakeville Highway in the area 9 between D Street and Washington Street. There has been some discussion about the io possibility of moving the main line tracks westerly towards Copeland Street. The reason for ii this suggestion is the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers project to manage the wet weather river i2 flow. There are two railroad bridges that need to be either improved, to allow water to flow is more freely, or, if feasible, one bridge needs to be removed. One of these two railroad ia bridges is on the railroad main line easterly of Lakeville Street and the other railroad bridge is is appro~mately on a straight line westerly of Copeland Street past Washington Street. i6 The recommendation of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Committee is to retain. the i~ railroad mainline in its current location and pursue alternative methods of continued service is to Dairymen's Feed. If that is not feasible, replace the existing Copeland Street bridge that is iv called the `Drill line bridge.' The City Council nodded approval to this recommendation. Zo The Council also nodded approval of commencement of discussions with the Depot property 2i owner with the intent to develop the bus transfer station on the Depot site alongside the - 2a e~sting Depot buildings. The City Council expressed their desire that the owners of the 2s property be contacted at the earliest opportunity regarding the use of this area so that Za ownership cannot slip away. Staff is to go on record requesting City notification of any 2s action by the owners regarding change of control of the property. It was asked that this idea 26 be placed on the agenda for additional discussion. The City Council also aslced if there has z~ been any discussion about a park-n-ride facility near the railroad station areas because the 2a importance of a nearby parking facility would enhance the public transit use. All the 29 Councilmembers and property owners are invited to attend the Central Petaluma Specific 3o Plan meetings when they can. The Council asked for an update by a rail consultant to look at 3i the overall rail plan so that the City's actions are the best land use as well as the best rail use. 3z One caution addressed by the Councilmembers was that any similarity to a BART parking 33 area is to be avoided at all costs. 34 ~SO. 97-253 NCS 3s NYUY.'TI-1V~ODAY. 'I'RANSPOR~'AT'ION & I.ANI) iTSE S'I'IJI)Y 36 ~ ~L~~.~~~~~ ~I.E~N s~ Resolution 97 253 NCS adopting the Sonoma Marin Multi-modal Transportation and Land Use ss Study as a guide for transportation improvements and requesting adoption of the Study by the 39 Sonoma County Transportation Authority. Phase I"Preferred Scenario" of this study includes ao both High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes between Windsor/River Road and State Highway 116 ai in Cotati and the Rainier Road and East Washington Avenue interchanges would be installed. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, DK- Councilmember David Keller, MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Cidzens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Page 28, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 i Phase 2 projects would include adding HOV lanes through Petaluma between Old Redwood 2 Highway and State Route 116 as well as a new interchange at Old Redwood Highway. 3 During the time between the development of the draft and final documents, upgrading the a freeway between the Petaluma bridge and Novato was dropped as was the northbound HOV s lane in San Rafael, which was changed to a reversible lane. Other projects in the Petaluma 6 area include widening State Route 116 from Caulfield to the southerly City Limits, widerung 7 Old Redwood Highway between Stony Point Road and North IvlcDowell Blvd. including a s new bridge, and completion of the work to improve the southerly end of Stony Point Road 9 between Santa Rosa and Petaluma. io The rail transit system is recommended to have Diesel Light Rail Vehicles (DLRV) to ii provide public transportation in the two counties. Transit oriented development policies i2 would be relied upon to assist in the access and ease of use of rail transportation. A Primary i3 Rail Station would be constructed near Petaluma's downtown in the first phase; another ia primary rail station would be constructed at Rainier Avenue in the second phase. The final is phase would have a secondary rail station at Lakeville Highway. i6 NR at a Council meeting .before October 20, she would like to see a resolution adopted i~ saying if state and federal funds become available for safety improvements to the highway ig between Petaluma and Novato they should be pursued. is In order to finance the project, it is anticipated that Marin and Sonoma Counties would have 2o to pass a sales tax increase. The goal is to have the issue on the November, 1998, ballot. Zi Resolution 97-253 NCS was introduced by DK, seconded by NR. 22 Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton zs Noes: Mayor Hilligoss (it should have included the upgrade from Novato to Petaluma) 2a Absent: None Zs ItESO. 97-254 NCS z6 BENSON ESTATES z~ Councilmember Read left the room. Resolution 97-254 NCS extending the subdivision 2s performance time for Benson Estates to June 30, 1998. Introduced by PT and seconded by 29 ~. 3o Ayes: Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 3 i Noes: None 32 Absent: Read 33 CONTItAC~ All~IENDMEIVTS 34 NOSSAIVIAN GU~'FINEIt AND CAMP, DRESSER & McKEE ss ~he Council asked that all items about wastewater be placed on an evening agenda and in the 36 case of ttvs agenda item, it was requested that representatives of the firms be present. This 3~ was continued to September 29. The Council would like a report on what has been sa accounted for, as far as billing hours goes; with both firms. Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 29 1 CLOSEID SESSION z The City Council went into closed session with legal counsel on anticipated litigation. s Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(c) 1 matter. ~ AIDJOi1ItN s'~he Council stayed at City Hall for dinner 6 1~CONVEIV~ 7:00 p.m. ~ Present: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss a Absent:.None Present: City Attorney 9 PI.EDGE OF AI.I.EGIANCE ~o Vice Mayor Hamilton led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. i i iVIO1VIIENT OF SId.ENCE iz PU~I~IC CO11VI1VIENT i3 Sam, a smart and friendly one year old dog was introduced to the audience by a ia representative of the Humane Society. Vice Mayor Hamilton has been giving him a home for ~s the last week or so and she said he has responded very well to commands. People were i6 invited to come down to the Shelter on Hopper Street from 11 - 6 Monday through Saturday i~ and visit all the animals and choose their new four-legged friend for adoption. is Terrance Garvey, 83 Maria Drive - comments on the new sewer plant bidding process -(1) it i9 is very difficult to know what real help the County can provide to Petaluma at this late date. Zo They can neither spend the time nor the funds spent by NIUW or US Filter. Their RFP calls zi for a 30 contract, which is longer than many care for. Xet, an arrangement with the County 2z could lock-in Petaluma forever. zs Bringing in the County at this time creates even more delay while rejection of the bidders on Za the RFP rejects two year's time and at $1 Million in investment by them. They have both 2s spent a lot of time on this job. In summary, I would ask what does the County really bring to a6 the table that gives you an advantage? 2~ (2) ~-Iow do you make a decision without knowing the cost. The bids vary appreciably but za you can choose the low bid. If the cost difference is a few percent, you may want 29 clarification of selected items from both bidders. 30 (3) Where do you go from here? Staff has recommended US Filter equal or better, I believe. si The Committee, on the basis of finances, recommended 1Vlontgomery United Water. Xou ss have sort of a trade-off here. Why not get the cost and make a decision on that. Because 33 you have two people, it's a tie, the cost should break the tie. And why just have one person 34 to deal with now? Because you are not sure what issues you must deal with for negotiation. 3s I believe David Keller asked the other rught, what are the negotiating issues. It's hard to say 36 at this time. But I'd like to go through a few that came earlier that I would consider rather 3~ important. Will the bidders recover costs from the City, if you reject them and accept the ss County proposal? Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, DK- Councilmember David Keller, ~11~I-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Gitizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments NR-Councrlmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Page 30, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 ~ You really want a 30 year contract on this. Plant ownership makes one unsure of the 30 year 2 contract. I've heard that several times. Without plant ownership, the contract doesn't seem s to be any problem because you already have one that works quite well. a To get down to plant ownership, you have some choices. On~ of the issues would be the s cost to the City after 30 years when the plant is turned back to the City, if it is. Can the City 6 take immediate title to the plant with a mortgage agreement with the bidder? Then you have ~ the advantage of control of the facilities if problems arise, and it eliminates property taxes, s w}uch probably start around a quarter million if not more. Ne~, probably a predetermined 9 buy-out procedure for either parties at the request of either party with two years notice io would give an even chance to turn the facility back to the city. And, the next is do we have a i i truly clear-cut buy-out procedure for termination of contract for cause? Another sticky item ~z is a procedure to increase or decrease service fees, annual economic adjustments, force i3 majeure provisions. And getting back to the cost, I brought up at the very end, is that US ia Filter apparently has a lower financial rating than Montgomery United Water, but does it still is meet the requirements in the RFP? i6 I just wanted to offer you a few ideas, possibly make your decision easier to make. i~ Peter deKramer - offered suggestions about the appointments to the City Manager Citizens ia Committee. The goal is to provide a fair method for selection of candidates and to provide a i9 process that allows the public to participate. First, determine the number of appointees; zo second, select appointment date; third, hold off voting until the council meeting following the z~ interviews; and forth allow each council-member as many votes as there are appointments to 2~ be made. So a council-member may wish to place all their votes on a single candidate. This 2s should support the general vote wished by some council-members and the one-member one- 2a appointment vote desired by others. zs Will Stapp, 1264 Mountain View - talked about voter fraud and mentioned he has a television z6 program on the cable access channels. The first program was about voter fraud and when the z~ City will become involved in the investigation. as MM said he has asked for a report and we haven't heard anything from our Acting Police z9 Chief. He wants this on the agenda the first meeting in October to get a full report. 3o DK said we were promised something from the Secretary of State's office. He wants both 3~ representatives to make a report. 3z JH said if we don't get a representative from Mullin's office, we can get the Council to send a 3s letter. 34 Mayor Hilligoss gave plaques to former commissioners and committeemen: Terry Kosewic 35 for his service on SPARC, Bob Patterson, Felix Weyle and Connie Pfendler for their service 36 on the Airport Commission, I,inda Rahman, Steve von Raesfeld and J. ~. `1Vick for their 3~ service on the Planrung Commission and to Robert U'ren for tus service on the Recreation ss Commission. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncrlmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Ba~ Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 31 1 CO~JNCIi. COIVYIVIENT z MS mentioned correspondence received from Leisure I.ake, staff should send a response to s them. She wants to agendize Peter deKramer's comments for future Council discussion. a NIM maybe we could incorporate Peter DeKramer's input when we make our next committee s appointments. 6 MS there has been a proposal from a member of the public and I think we should have a ~ discussion. s NIM okay fine, what I am passing out to you is a packet assembled for you regarding global 9 warming and the impacts on the Pacific Northwest and regions; however, it is not ~ust that io what it is a scientist statement that was signed by 2400 preerrunent scientists tallcing about the ii impacts ofglobal warnung caused by human activity. There is an econorrust statement signed i2 by over 200 preeminent econortusts talking about the economic impacts about global i3 warming on our environment, there is a statement from the insurance industry recounting the ia risks involved in global warming, there is a statement on solar power being on the rise as a is business activity in response to this problem, and then there is a couple of statements from i6 the Washington State Trade and Economic Development Department and the Western i~ Governors Association meeting. The reason I am passing this out is since our top priority for ia the City Council is sustainable economic development, this information is incredibly valuable i9 to us to look at, how to incorporate economic sustainability and environmental protection at zo the same time so I would like to ask you all to read this look at this keep this in mind when zi we actually get down to working on brass tacks of our economic development. I have also 2z asked Ron Dole from the County to give us feedback on the Thousand Oaks Environmental z3 Business Development, which he said he would get to us as you recall he spoke at the last sa Mayors and Councilmembers dinner and gave a rundown on the Countywide economic 2s development so we've got some very good information here that I tlunk can guide us in our 26 work in that regard. 2~ DK - regarding the letters we received from I,eisure Lake, sometimes you wonder why the Zs development was named Leisure Lake, I would appreciate if the Engineering Staff could 29 contact Dave Doughty, hydrologist in the City who has pertinent information regarding 3o drainage patterns and flooding on that site and has made recommendations before about 3i some fairly straight forward fixes to that. I'll give you his number, Tom (Hargis), if you like. 3z The other for public information, I have passed out an article to Council and to staff on 33 regulating the water industry. This is a reprint from T'he Ecolo ist and it's a review of the 34 privatization of Crreat Britain's water and sewer industries which has yielded to date since ss 1989 some rather mixed results and perhaps some precautionary for us as we consider 36 privatization. s~ NR - since technology has shown up in Petaluma, I'd like to wish Happy Birthday to the 3a Petaluma Net, which is the internet forerunner for the City of Petaluma. Over 80% of the 39 cities in California have V6~eb pages now, and it's nice that we are part of those. On October ao 4 and 5 is the 24-Relay Challenge over a Petaluma High School. I don't know if any ai Councilmembers are going to participate. That's always a great commuruty event. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, DK- Councilmember David Keller, MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Cidzens VVastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Page 32, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 i NIM were you going to say any words about Warren Salmons? 2 Mayor - he asked that we not s MM I just have to say that although Wanen and I have had our disagreements, we have a worked together very closely over the last couple of years, particularly on the sewer plant s issue; and Warren is a very bright guy, and he has worked very hard for this city, and despite 6 the fact that he didn't want to be here to get a commendation, I think we owe it to him to tell ~ him that we really do appreciate the 17 years that he put in several different capacities for the s City. Warren's last day is this Friday, but I just want everybody to know that he has done a 9 lot for the City; and if he is watching tonight, thanks, Warren. io JH there's one thing that Warren's going to be taking with hinn that I am sure that anybody i i who has worked with him will never forget, and that is his sense of humor that has sustained i2 many of us through long meetings, some hard times, and I just want to appreciate his 17 is years as the time he has been as Planning Director, working on the General Plan update, and ia on the wastewater issue, and especially on Lafferty and the work he did there. Thank you, is Warren. i6 PT I also worked with Warren through the Planrung Commission and on City Council, and I ~~ wanted to also say, Warren, thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put is into the City, because you are a part of it, and you will always be a part of it, because of the i9 effort that you have put in. So, thank you, Warren. zo MS I'd also like to thank Warren. I really think he made a significant contribution to the City Zi with all his various projects, and I think we are a better City because of it. Thank you, z2 Warren. Zs Mayor - I gave him a plaque at staff meeting today and I~romised him I wouldn't say aa anything, so I can't. 2s JH well we didn't make that prorrvse. 26 PI20CLA1VIA~'IONS z~ Mayor Hilligoss read a proclamation which expressed appreciation to Michael Medias who 2s ran into a neighboring home immediately after an explosion to save Mr. Johnson who was z9 burned by the explosion. Fire Battalion Chief Dan Simpson spoke to express the degree of so heroism shown by Mr. Medias. 3i Mayor Hilligoss read a proclamation about Pollution Prevention Week - September 15 to 21. sz This was begun to recognize efforts of the commercial, governmental and public trying to ss make improvements to protect the environment. Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmem8er Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouricilmernberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmerriber Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governanents ~} ' ' September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 33 i DK in pollution prevention and pollution reduction, I would also like to commend San a Francisco Bay Keepers and five businesses in the area, Rancho Feeding Corporation, C&W 3 Water Wreckers, A1 Stack, Penngrove Water Dismantling and Cal Crush for coming to an a agreement to significantly reduce offsite storm water pollution into the Petaluma River and its s tributaries. All parties deserve a hand for working that out. 6 ~SO, 97-2551VCS ~ CONCE~tN OF PLU~'ONIQJIVI ~N CASSINI SPACECI~A~~' '~O SAT~TgtN s Resolution 97-255 NCS expressing Petaluma's serious concern about the inclusion of 9 plutonium as part of the Cassini Spacecraft project due to dangers of nuclear radiation. JH io read the resolution. Beth Grimes, 1629 St. Anne Way - read a document outlining the ii dangers of plutoruum. Plutoruum is being used for power because Saturn is too distant from iz the Sun for solar power to be practical for this space exploration. Plutoruum is the most ~3 deadly substance on the face of the Earth. Introduced by JH, seconded by DK. ia Ayes: Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss is Noes: Read#, Stompe** i6 Absent: None i~ (* not in favor of sending a resolution to NASA or the President of the United States or a is member of Congress or one of our Senators stating that the City of Petaluma should delay a i9 launch that NASA is going to send into space for space exploration and I have no objection 2o to any member of the City Council bringing anything in front of this Councal for review but 2i if there is going to be a letter sent to these people, I would request that my name be removed 2z from the stationery, because I am not in favor of asking a launch to be delayed.) (**I am 23 going to be voting no on this for a couple of reasons, first I think the timing is too late, but 2a all I have here is one newspaper article. It refers to the study. I am into judging the merits. 2s But, in future when these things come before us could we get background information and a 26 copy of the study instead of just a newspaper article?) z~ DK requested stated that when petitions are submitted on an item on our agenda, if we could ~s at least have a summary sheet so we know that they are available to take a look at. Zv FRA'I'ES 120AI) I.ANI) iTSE DISCiJSSI01~1 3o Staff reviewed the various alternatives and suggested there is merit to pursuing a General 3i Plan amendment and to have a thorough analysis of the potential land uses at this 42 acre site. 3a PT felt that development here is growth inducement. 3s Staff suggested that the Council could have a specific plan prior to development, pursue an 34 independent land use study, evaluate alternate land uses with a general plan amendment and ss an EIR, or include this with the mid-term review of the General Plan. MM thought this was 36 going to be looked at during the mid-term review. JH we should look for ways to evaluate 3~ this property without doing the EIR because she was concerned about influence of developer 38 paying for the EIR. Principal Planner Jim McCann noted that a Specific Plan must include s9 certain elements and information pursuant to State Law, whereas a Land Use Study does not ao have the same regulatory framework. DK prefers having an EIR, however, CEQA is not a a~ very good planning tool. We need to look at larger issues. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor.Tane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, DK Councilmember David Keller, MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember ~Iary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Page 34, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 ~ Carol Whitmore, P. O. Box 319 Woodacre - planning consultant representing the project 2 sponsor - said the Specific Plan would be funded by the developers. They are very much 3 concerned about the time for an independent study. They want to get along with the project. a This has been in a Study zone for 12 years. Study zones are meant to last only 8 months. In s 1993 the City recommended a land use study. No study has been done. We have proposed a 6 combination of uses which would provide jobs. A campus type business environment. We ~ are convinced this would be a complementary project to the desires of the City. It is time to s decide on land uses for this area. An EIR would do a lot of things and the Council would get v a more informative document. io Judy Davidoff, Baker, attorney with McKenzie, 2 Embaracadero Center, Suite 2400, San i i Francisco 94707. The option of a. General Plan amendment with an EIR does not make a i2 commitment to the developer on the part of either the Planning Corrunission or the Council. i3 We suggest you consider a General Plan amendment and an EIR, which is an appropriate ia method to evaluate. A land use study in itself will not provide detail the Council wants to i s have. i6 PT wants to look at the City purchasing the property for reclamation purposes. This will set i~ an example for development on the Lakeville corridor. She would like to see the Planrung ~a Commission look at this again with other alternatives in mind. Also, she would like to see ~9 the Parks and Recreation Commission look at the issue to see if they wish to purchase it as a zo park and to suggest a funding mechanism. The Open Space District should be interested in it 2i because of its potential growth inducement. aa NR in 1987 she was on the Planning Commission when it was placed as a Study zone. We a3 are putting the City in jeopardy by not doing anything on this property. She watched the za Planning Commission meeting when they discussed this and looked at many possible uses. zs She doesn't think we have much alternative and it is time to make a decision as to the 26 alternatives, an EIR and Planning Commission recommendation. z~ MS an EIR and land use feasibility study will give us options. She supports a mixed use. 2s DK would be happy with a specific plan and then follow with CEQA, that is the fairest way. z9 The rest of the Council expressed support for retaining the current General Plan designation 3o and having a Specific Plan prepared. PT noted it is up to the developer to fund tlvs study. si RESO. 97-256 NCS 3z STONEItIDGE NEG DEC 33 Resolution 97-256 NCS approval of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact 34 for the Stoneridge subdivision. Staff reviewed the details of the 20 unit single farruly ss subdivision. There is an e~sting house, so 19 units can be approved. The building envelope 36 has been reduced so that the uphill edge is fifty feet from the property line. If necessary, the 3~ building lines can be refined by SPARC. Drainage impacts have been adequately addressed. 3s PT asked if the Fire Department was consulted with regard to the hammer head streets. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor.Iane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PHMayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouizcilmemberMaryStompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 35 i Response, they have been consulted and prefer a cul de sac, but will accept a hammer head 2 under certain conditions. The Engineering Department is working to obtam a water line for s the adjacent Maxwell site. The utilities will be underground. David Strand of 288 a Sunnnyslope Road was pleased with the way the Planning Commission looked at the project. s It is the duty of the Planning Commission and City Council to look at each project and see 6 how well it will blend in with the City. The enrollment at McNear School is at maximum. ~ DK noted that he did not see any notices posted on the property. Although mailed notices s are sent, he would like to see the notices on poles and other sites so people who use the area 9 would know what is happening. DK also noted there are no parks in the area, schools are io impacted and the fees collected don't mean a facility will be built. Staff noted that the Parks ii and Recreation fee cannot be used for maintenance. Upon staff mentioning a park to be iz located across D Street is shown on the General Plan, DK said is it ludicrous to consider a is park across D Street for these kids. He would like to have the schools respond to their ia enrollment statistics. It appears that there will be pollution increases to Kelly Creek and is ultimately Petaluma River, and he would like to have this taken care of on this site now. i6 There was some discussion of placing detention ponds on the properties. Civil Engineer i~ Bonrue Diefenderfer said this would be difficult. Council hopes the tree survival rate is much ~s better than that of the trees at Westridge Park. MS this should go to Parks and Recreation i9 and noted there should be a balance between east side and west side development. Zo Property owner Larry 7onas noted the schools were commented on in the EIR and the did zi address that in their comments. They plan to bring in portable units. T'hat is the way schools 22 are adjusting to the ever changing student population today. The number of students changes ~3 enough to cause the schools to enlarge and reduce their size by using portables. People who za purchase houses in my subdivisions all take care of their trees. He would like to see the parks ~s money from this subdivision put into Westridge Park. When we do the preliminary map we z6 should notice the neighbors again. 2~ 7ohn FitzGerald, 114 Suncrest - We don't have any problems with the project itself. Zs Everyone of those houses on Suncrest were built between the 1960's through 1977. These 29 house are all oriented with the front yards towards this property, and we pointed that out 3o early at the Planrung Commission meeting that our front yard's are the back and side yards of 3i this new project. The two issues here are the open field fencing and concern about putting in 32 swimrrung poo-s wanting to go to solid fencing. We would think of a 50 foot setback along 33 this line would be more appropriate is now an open field and the fencing. 34 Mr. Buckley noted the building envelopes have been modified and they have planned single 3s family homes on certain sites because that would not be as obtrusive. 36 Although there was some reference of a path on the Ma~vell property to go across D Street, 3~ former Planning Commissioners could not remember that. The Planning Director will ask the 3s Parks and Recreation Commission to look at a path in tlus area. There was a question 39 whether or not the Fire Department time to reach this site is measured from the telephone call ao or from the time the vehicle drives out of the fire house door. 'Phis is one of the subject ai matters that will be discussed during the Fire Master Plan development. Regarding the az detention pond conversation, City Engineer Hargis noted the applicant has chosen to design as the storm drain piping to reduce the speed of the drainage. It was noted the Kelly Creek aa bypass was designed for this development. MS doesn't think detention ponds are a good as idea. Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouneilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmem6er Davrd Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councrlmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Comrnittee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments Page 36, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 i DK would like to see pockets for plantings. MM would like to look at the overall flood 2 policy as a future agenda item. Resolution 97-256 NCS approving a mitigated negative 3 declaration for Stoneridge Subdivision was introduced by MS, seconded by PT a Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss s Noes: None 6 Absent: None ~ ORD.20601~TCS a REZONE STONERIDGE SUBDIVISION v Councilmember Maguire left the room. Introduce Ordinance 2060 NCS rezoning Stoneridge io Subdivision to Planned Unit Development District on 11.66 acre parcel located on Sunny ~ ~ Slope Road. Introduced by Nancy Read, seconded by Mary Stompe i2 Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss is Noes: None ia Absent: Maguire _ is 1VEW SEWE~t PI.ANT i6 The agenda item - Reconfirmation of directive to Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee i~ (CWAC) regarding Public/Private Evaluation process. Council referred this item to the is CWAC. i9 The agenda item - Referral of Sonoma County Water Agency's offer of assistance to CWAC 2o for consideration and recommendation to Council. Council referred this item to the CWAC, zi also. zz The agenda item - Request to Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Board of Directors 2s (i.e., County Board of Supervisors) to modify their proposed policy directive regarding Za assistance so as to conform with State law regarding Public/Private Project Evaluation was zs discussed at length. a6 MS noted the two vendors have spent a large amount of time and money on their proposals. 2~ VVe started looking at this in April and are waiting for a comparative bid. We did approve the 2a methodology and want to continue with it. We need a specific time line for this. NR is 29 concerned about the potential of the City's liability exposure with this issue. The staff said 3o the appropriate time to meet with the SCWA is after the City has negotiated with one of the 3i vendors on the "product." The question arose, "How could there be the introduction of a sz third party without the City being exposed to liability?" 33 MM noted that the City has charged this to the Citizens Wastewater (CWAC) Advisory 34 Committee. This item coming tonight is premature. He referred to the September 9, 1997, ss letter from Karen Hedlund of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott and noted that answers to ~ 36 the seventeen questions should come from Mr. Poole of the Sonoma County Water Agency s~ (SCWA.) We need to assure ourselves that one way or the other is superior, public or 3s private. Key to a6breviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Cou»cilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 37 i AB 2660, aka Government Code §5956, the enabling legislation for either the water agency z or another public agency to proceed with a design-build or a design-build-operate option. JH 3 asked what good is a comparison going to be if it is not a real project? City Engineer Hargis a understood the Council had asked for the water agency to be present at this meetmg. s I~aren ~edlund, Nossaman, Guthner, I~nox & Elliott - in terms of how you should go about 6 doing the public/private comparison, what you need to do is to satisfy the Public Utility ~ Commission that you have gone about it the right way. We addressed a letter to them in s January in which we outlined the general approach that you would take. It did not commit us 9 to actually go out and solicit another proposal. We described for them how we would be ~o comparing the privatization proposal with an estimate of what the conventional approach ii would be. They have not objected to that as an approach. i2 Cost estianate of ~ publicly owned approach - Karen Hedlund said the staff could do it is based on their experience. Xou would get an engineer's estimate of what the cost would be ia if you did it on a conventional design/bid/build basis; but, you would also be comparing, and is we outlined tlvs for the PUC, not only the base cost of one proposal versus the other, but i6 also comparing the various other factors that you take into consideration. With a i~ privatization proposal, you are shifting significant risk to the private sector over the term of is the agreement, risks that would be on the City in terms of maintaining the facility and making i9 sure that it ran properly for the fu1130 year term. Those issues are proper for the City to take zo into account when they do the evaluation. It's not just what it's going to cost today, but Zi what it's going to cost over 30 years, and, what is the likelihood, this is difficult to estimate, zz that the City would spend more money because it would assume more risk under the z3 conventional approach. 2a A~ 2660 MNT - does this legislation preclude the City from negotiating with the water ~s agency to operate and be on the hook for a 30 year term of a plant that they design/build? - 26 Karen Hedlund said this is a new statute adopted in 1996. We have a question as to whether z~ the City could utilize AB-2660 on its own, and whether AB-2660 provides authority to do a~ design/build separate from a service contract under the City's Charter. Does it override the z9 City's Charter? It may or may not. This is very a significant question that we think the so Counsel for the water agency ought to take a look at and make sure they are comfortable si vvith. ~Iowever this process goes, when you get to the end of the day, some lawyer's got to 32 write an opiruon and it's got to be an unqualified opinion that AB-2660 is available authority. 33 There may be a way of dealing with it if they can't get there, and that is to get some kind of sa judicial determination on the validity of the contract. It's a very interesting proposal that the 3s agency has made, it also raises some very interesting questions. 36 ~Vater Agency Counsel reveew - Hedlund - We think it is appropriate for the City to go s~ back to the water agency and suggest to them that they ought to explore some of these sa questions with their counsel before the City expends a lot of its own resources and going 39 forward and exploring the technical aspects of their proposal further. Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, DK Councilmember David Keller, MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens i~Vastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments NR-Councilmember Nancy Read MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt _< , e ta' r~°: 7= ' . . Page 38, Vol. 31 September fl5, 1997 i Statute needs amendment - Hedlund - AB 2660 is a very broad statute and it would appear a that you could do almost anytlung under it. There are a couple of questions under AB-2660 3 that need to be resolved. One is that it seems to require a lease to the private operator. I a don't know what that means in the context of doing something that is on the one hand a s design/build contract and then on the other hand a separate operation contract. One of the 6 problems of the statute is it's in need of amendment. I have an understanding of what the ~ drafters intended; whether they got there in what they did Y don't know. 'There are some s issues that simply need to be explored. 9 DK all the 17 questions in your September 9 letter seem to indicate there may be potential io fatal flaws. Do you have answers to these questions? Karen Hedlund response, absolutely ii not. DK reminded the Council in the CEQA approvals on this project, under threat of i2 litigation by some interested party it was made very explicit that public ownership is indeed is an option and that means it has to remain a real option. We bound ourselves to consider ~a public ownership as an option. is Hedlund September 9 letter - MM asked for a response to Question 1, "May the City i6 change the legal basis of its procurement at this state of the process without terr~unating the i~ procurement entirely and requesting new proposals?" Karen Hedlund response, the reason I is raised that question is because of the letter we received from Orrick, Herrington which r9 described a process that raises some questions. In their description of it they said the City zo would select a design%build contractor as a concluding step in its current selection process. zi So there is some idea that they would piggy-back or utilize the existing RFP process. And z2 then they said the authority then would contract with the contractor selected by the City for a3 the design and construction of the project on site. I am raising this as a question because it 2a arises out of the way Orrick described the proposal. Their understanding may not be correct. 2s It may be possible to do it another way. The City will need to ensure that the City under AB- z6 2660 could legally go out and solicit a design/build contract as opposed to a service contract, 2~ because of the Charter. The Charter provides that if you want to build a public works project zs it has to be competitively bid to the lowest responsible bidder. We spent a long time trying to 29 structure this procurement to be consistent with that so that what you are procuring is not a 3o public works project, but a service contract. Many of the questions in her September 9letter 3i refer to that issue. s2 AB-2660 - NIM is there anything in the legislation that prevents the 35 year contract? Karen 3s Hedlund response - one of the things that we have to do is look at what the authority of the 34 JPA is and whether or not it can operate independently under AB-2660. JPA's typically only 35 have the powers of their members and if the City of Petaluma doesn't have the power to do 36 it, then you have to look at the water agency to see if it has the independent power to do it. s~ Regarding Government Code §5956.6(a) "shall provide for the lease of the facilities to, or sg ownership by, the private entity." and whether or not the Sonoma County Water Agency 39 (SCWA) can satisfy this, the meaning of `shall' may mean `must' so this needs to be looked ao at because it appears not to be an option. Karen Hedlund reiterated that it would be good to ai have the water agency counsel respond to these questions. Key to abbreviatrons: JH-T~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Counci/member Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 39 i ltandy Poofle, General Manager of the Sonoma County i~Vater Agency - we believe it's 2 imperative to try to develop a definitive price, not some cost estimate for design, s construction, and operation so that we as managers of systems can tell our rate payers and a customers what that means to them. We are a water/wastewater enterprise. The key s question that wasn't asked is whether or not the vendors, if you select a proposed vendor to 6 be your privatized firm, will they work with us of have first right of refusal to work with us ~ on the public project process for design/construct. Or would the second proposed vendor be s willing to step in and fill that role? We are not trying to bring a third party proposer into this 9 process. A public project may be publicly operated or privately operated, if the agency works io on this process, you still may pick a private vendor for the public project, or you may pick the a i City of Petaluma, your staff, to operate that treatment plant. VVe have looked at it. iz We have a bit of a concern about the adoption of the proposed resolution that you attached is to the staffreport. We don't think that's appropriate for what we are trying to propose here. ia On tomorrow's agenda all we are really asking for is to look at this concept and be able to is lure the staff that we need to put together a better proposed option so that you can have our i6 resources look into these kinds of questions with your Counsel to better define what the i~ public project process should be. We tried to look at engineering staff do cost estimates and is that be the basis for a high, low, medium average for a project, and we did not come up with i9 a solution. The other alternative was to actually prepare plans and specs and bid to bring a Zo third proposer in for the public project; that did not seem acceptable. The other option was 2i to rely on the vendors to prepare the option. We believe many of the issues can be resolved 22 and we feel it is worthwhile to work with the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee as (CWAC) and you staffto go through it to better define what the public project is. Za In answer to the Council's question, will you proffer public funded financing for the agreed Zs upon version as proposed by one of the privatized vendors? Randy Poole said they are going z6 to bring them into the process so that we don't have to bring in other outside vendors to do z~ the project. The real key is to ask them, is this something that they can work with. If the Zg vendors are willing to work with the SCWA, the SCWA is willing to offer the plant that the 29 vendor(s) propose with the SCWA source of public financing as a comparison. SCWA will 30 leave it to the City to make the decision as to which is the better price. 3i l~andy Poole - NIM asked, "If the SCWA is markedly less costly and the City Council says 3z under the 1985 Privatization Act we are precluded from going with a private vendor 33 approach, is the water agency looking to operate this for a 30 or 35 year term with the intent 34 on the City Council's part to shift the responsibility for the design/build entity and keep that ss responsibility on them through a long term service contract?" Randy Poole said two things 36 we recommend in tlus public project process: (1) We recommend you form some sort of 3~ 7PA just because of the need of your silent partner the Penngrove Area hasn't been 3s represented, we thinlc you could have a better organization to look at the treatment plant if it 39 is public (2) Then the question becomes do you hire say the agency or yourselves or the ao private vendors to be your operator of that system. We are interested, and we think they are, ai too. NIM asked if one of our vendors actually ends up doing the design/build is the long term a2 operation still going to be on that entity so that at the end of the 30 or 35 year term when it 43 reverts to public ownership the ~ublic hasn't been saddled for the prior 15 years with costs aa for repairs? Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PHMayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens VVastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments ~:~ ,~, _ , . , ~ .. _" ' ' ~~. -_..i,.., Page 40, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 ~ Randy Poole said what they are recommending is the City buy-out the design/build contractor 2 at some point at the end of the construction of the project when the thing is up and running 3 that you allow them to finance that construction during that process, as their lease option, a and then you buy them out at that time is what we are looking at doing. s I2andy Poole - Bonds would be used to pay for that debt. Mayor Hilligoss asked, "Would 6 we have to go for Proposition 218 (November, 1996, state ballot)?" lZandy Poole said they ~ have looked at it under the JPA process and that it's not part of 218, according to Orrick, s Herrington's analysis. That is why they set it up structurally in this fashion for a service 9 charge then to the Penngrove zone and to the City of Petaluma. io NIM if the JPA buys out the design/build entity, the private vendor and they do a slipshod job ii in it and the JPA now owns this and it is paid for by public bonds and the thing falls apart in iz five years, what assurance do we have that this process has served us better than a completely is privatized process where not only are they have designed it and built it and they are on the ~a hook to operate that puppy for 30 years in a clean and upright manner so that the public is is protected. Randy Poole said you have to look at your risk and your cost, what is the i6 differential between private versus public, and is that risk worth taking for the benefit of the i~ public? If the private firms are less than the public then you definitely should go for the ia private. If it's right there at the same value that issue may be that you still go private. NIM i9 the question that Karen is raising is that how do you compare when we do this comparison, 2o public versus private funding, financing, how do you price the risk see that's the problem. ai Randy Poole you are going to have to look at insurance costs to cover that risk. MM but Zz there is no insurance to say yes we'll guarantee your sewer plant runs fine for 30 years. Is z3 there a way that either the JPA or the water agency or whatever the final form this is that 2a maybe it's a partnership between the water agency and the private vendor or something that 2s they are under a long term commitment to operate the plant and keep it running in a good 26 manner. Randy Poole - you could look at that as an option. 2~ Randy Poole - MS what is your proposed timeline and a couple of the things you addressed zs in your letter to Warren, dated April 28, regarding the plan connecting recycled water users 29 from Alexander Valley to Lakeville, just what are you envisioning there as well, as this letter 3o said that you've been meeting with potential agricultural users? Randy Poole - he has a 3i meeting tomorrow with the agricultural users in the Alexander Valley and the City of Santa 32 ~Zosa to take a look at their particular sites and how it might be tying in with the proposed 33 north, the geysers type ag reuse project. MS is that very much fluid right now? Randy Poole 3a - I am always optimistic, so we should be finding out about the CAL FED funding process at 3s the end of October to see whether or not that is practical and your next itern on the agenda 36 talks about reclaimed water and we are working with the water contractors amendment # 10 3~ that looks at reuse of water and how we'd like to expand that use for urban reuse. All of ss those things are moving forward. The time line is Santa Rosa is planning to make a decision 39 for the geysers ag reuse project in the next month or so. CAL FED is at the end of October, ao first of November that we will find out what's with those numbers and Amendment #10 with ai the water contractors, he hopes to have approved by the middle of October. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-Cou~TCilmemberMaryStompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 4fl ~ i I,egal Questions - NR the City of Petaluma is in the middle of negotiation process with two z private vendors, please tell us what our liability issues are at the present time if something like 3 this was introduced before our City Attorney who had just stated it wouldn't enter until after a a vendor was chosen. City Attorney Rudnansky said he is not ceRain that at this point it s would be either appropriate or wise to discuss liability issues until we've really had a chance 6 to look at some of these issues that Karen raised. Tl~us would be on record and certainly I ~ wouldn't want Karen to shoot from the tup and have somettung come back as E~ibit A in x any potential litigation down the line. We should, perhaps, wait until we've had a chance to v look at some of these issues. NR when do you think you will have these answers? City io Attorney, when Karen gives them to me. ii I.egal Questions - Karen Hedlund as soon as we have concluded some discussions with is Orrick and taken an independent look at it and have a better understanding of what it is the is water agency is proposing. It's not clear in her mind what process they are suggesting that ia either the City follow or that they follow in terms of developing their joint or separate is procurement process. We simply don't have an idea of that. That needs to be further flushed i6 out. NR is that two weeks, four weeks, six weeks? Karen I-Iedlund that is really up to them. i~ NR wittun four weeks? Karen Hedlund if they can respond on these issues. ia Questions to Hedlund - DK in that consideration could we have some reflection back to us iv about how this twist, which in my mind is a positive twist, but nevertheless a twist how this zo would intersect vvith the currenY response to the vendors and initiation of negotiations or zi anything else that we are going to do with them. Where are we in terms of timing, is that z~ going to affect timing in any decision-making or negotiation strategy how are we going to ~s handle that? Karen, I don't know how you could make a comparison until you have Za something to compare it to. You will be meeting next week and the following week to further Zs discuss the two proposals, and at some point, I don't know when, you all will make a z6 decision whether or not to go forward with negotiations, gt is our expectation that those 2~ negotiations should go very quickly, in a matter of a couple of weeks. We've had a fairly full as discussion and consideration of the issues in the proposal process that come up under the s9 contract. Everybody has a pretty good understanding of what's there so we're not so negotiating from a clean slate. That should go relatively quickly. 3i DK with the numbers and proposals that would come in from the water agency, how would 3z those intersect with the negotiations? Karen, that's not clear to me right now. DK that is 33 something I would like to have some options on. MM the way I read the 1985 Privatization 3a Act says you have to have something to compare it with, so, I~avid, we have to negotiate ss with the privatized vendors to come up with a completed project, then you can ask the water 36 agency to give publicly funded version of that project. You can't do it before that as far as I 3~ read the `85 Privatization Act. Would you concur. ICaren Hedlund, you want to be 3g comparing apples to apples. MM so you've got to make the apple first. DK then the water 39 agency is constrained to essentially provide numbers and comparisons based upon the same ao type of facility as we negotiate for. MM that's what I understand the comparison takes place ai with. DK I thought the original intent of the way the set up was for this RFP is that we az essentially say give us your best shot for how you want to perform this job we have 43 performance to some extent performance based RFP and why should we constrain the water aa agency to providing the identical facility if they can provide the same results? Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, IVR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt h~IM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments ~ .'ti€- _l:'- ' . ~ . ?..i~:: _ ~ .:.3Y J~'. .,• , . ~ . -• Page 42, Vol. 31 September 15, 1997 i MM because, as I understand it, we've gone into this process using the `85 Privatization Act 2 and it's got requirements for what steps to go through. Now, as I understand it, when you 3 get to the end of that and you have your comparison of apples to apples, and if public is a cheaper, then it doesn't say you have to go with that exact same project; it says you can't go s with the privatized project. So at that point it gets very fluid, but the point is that we've got 6 our time and money invested in a whole lot of work that is a great basis that theoretically we ~ may want to use. s DK I understand the question to me is the apples the plant, the facilities or is it the result, the 9 discharge and the treatment capacity? Karen Hedlund it is all of thaY and maybe more as io well. Not only are you comparing the plant and the capital cost of the plant, but also the cost i i over the term _and allocation of risks and the value of the guarantees that you get. There are i2 a whole series of things that you are going to have to take a look at and at some time put a i3 number on even though some of them are difficult to ascertain. DK so essentially we are ia saying to the water agency that their proposal would be constrained and defined by what we is negotiate with one of the vendors. Is that what we are saying? MM not necessarily 100%, i6 definitively it's where you start, because we're in this privatized phase where we pick a i~ vendor and we negotiate a plan. When you get to the end of that phase you compare public ia funding. Based on the `85 Privatization Act, you go with whichever serves the public best. i9 If that's the public one, it says it doesn't say to me that you absolutely have to go with you Zo negotiated with the vendor, what my experience says is that we would be really smart to use 2i what we have invested in as at least the basis for what we would end up potentially zz negotiating. What it doesn't say is that you have to go with whoever is providing the z3 publicly funded numbers. It doesn't say you have to go with exactly the same agreed upon za privatized project, but we need to look at the real world view here and do what is sound and zs right. I, for one, think we've got substantial basis established and don't particularly want to z6 just throw them ail out and start over. 2~ JH these are the kinds of issues I would like the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Comrruttee Zs (CWAC) to begin working through, make recommendations and do a sifting process so that 29 the issues are more refined when it comes to us. We could be here until one in the morning~ so just kind of imagining all the things there are to consider and that's why we have a CWAC. 3i PT it sounds like we are discussing whether the water agency will provide us with a project s2 evaluation versus a proposal for a treatment facility. I am getting those two distinctions. 3s And this draft resolution talks about the water agency providing us with a project evaluation 3a and then one of the Whereas's states that there are several legal issues as well as other 3s jurisdictional and procedural issues that will need to be resolved with respect to the SCWA's 36 proposal to make a proposal. If we adopt this resolution, we are going to adopt the fact that 3~ yes we are going to seek the SCWA help in providing a project evaluation and after we can 3s have some of these legal issues resolved, then we can make a decision as to whether or no we 39 can entertain a proposal. JH I would not vote to adopt the resolution. ao Bill White, member of the CWAC if you want to sent it to us to review, then don't word- a~ smith it too much. Both JH and MH said sent it to CWAC. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cour-cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember ~latt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments September 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 43 City Manager Beatty said he would contact the Board of Supervisors in the morning saying ' the Council discussed this, there was no conclusion, it has been refened to CWAC for recommendation and the City wants to cooperate and see what they propose. a AGENDA I~AIOTAGEIVIENT s T'he agenda item - Wastewater lYianagement Program - 1Zesolution approving the discharge 6 options and alternatives for the Long Range Ef~luent 1Vlanagement Plan was not discussed. ~ The agenda item - Resolution amending contracts with Camp, Dresser & McKee and a Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott for professional assistance with the Wastewater 9 Facilities Project was not discussed. io REPORT O~JT OI+' CLOSED SESSION ii The Mayor reported there was nothing reportable out of closed session. 12 AIDJOiTi~d is At 11:10 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to September 22 at 7:00 p.m. ia is - 3 16 ; f _ ~ ~ i ~~ -~ ~L ~ ~ ~~`~' , . is M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayoa~ i9 ATTEST; 20 ~ , 21 ~ p , 22 / / ~ ~ ~'~/'-~C~f Zs Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk t Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, DK- Councilmember David Keller, MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire CWAC - Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee SCWA - Sonoma County Water Agency ABAG - Associauon of Bay Area Governments NR-Councilmember Nancy Read ~i~IS-Councilmember Mary Stompe PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt ~~